We couldn’t believe it when we first heard it. The Obamascam story gets better every day. After DOJ this Thursday answers the 5th Circuit the Supreme Court will be able to use the document in the eventual decision issued.

——————————————————————————————Update III: Why don’t they call it what it is – Thuggery? A bunch of outlets picked up on what we wrote yesterday.

At Obama lovin’ Politico the JournoListers are forced to admit that “Obama, the left take on Supreme Court“. Examples abound on what Politico describes, “Obama’s statement echoes an emerging line of attack on the left.”

“Just as the Bush administration insisted that the war on terror was a new and unique kind of war, the Obama administration assures the court that the health-care market is unlike any other.

And now a conservative-led majority on the court may strike down Obama’s individual mandate, just as a liberal-led majority struck down Bush’s military tribunals. If so, law professor Orin Kerr wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, “this will be the second consecutive presidency in which the Supreme Court imposed significant limits on the primary agenda of the sitting President in ways that were unexpected based on precedents at the time the President acted.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was in the majority when the court reined in Bush, and his questions at oral argument last week suggested that he has misgivings about the scope of the health-care-reform law, too.”

George W. Bush was derided a “cowboy” but we don’t recall an attack by Bush (on a national security matter) against the court.

“The “strong majority” in Congress went 219-212 in the House, with 34 Democrats defecting. Not a single Republican in either chamber voted for it, and as Ace notes, the public itself has been steadfastly opposed to the law since day one. Against that backdrop, it’s an amazing show of balls by The One to dress this up as the Court somehow thwarting the people’s will. But even if O-Care really did have a “strong majority,” so what? The whole point of judicial review is to make sure that congressional majorities, strong or not, remain bound by their enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights. You know what law really did have a “strong majority” in both chambers? DOMA. Think there’ll be any tears shed on the left for majoritarianism if Anthony Kennedy cashiers that one on a 5-4 vote?”

—————————————————————————————–

If the Supreme Court strikes down the Obama health law scam opponents should headline in every article written (you know we will) that the Supreme Court acted in defense and wishes of the American people. Also, it might be wise for the Supreme Court in the majority opinion to forthrightly address the smears and attacks that will be used by Barack Obama henchmen and Barack Obama himself to undermine the constitutional standing of the court.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said President Obama should campaign against the Supreme Court, painting it as a conservative, activist institution if it rules that the administration’s healthcare law is unconstitutional.

“In terms of the Congress, I believe that it would be off-base for us to do that, but for the president, I don’t think it is,” Clyburn said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday. “I think the president ought to take a look at what happened in years before — we’ve seen presidents run against Congress and we’ve seen presidents run against the Supreme Court. Franklin Roosevelt did it to the Supreme Court; [Harry] Truman did it to the Congress.”

James Clyburn was the Obama supporter tasked with calling Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton “racist”. Clyburn is a cheap thug disguised as a congressman. He doesn’t wear a hoodie but his specialty is drive-by shootings. Today Obama picked up Clyburn’s gun:

“We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said at a joint news conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

“The reason is because in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional,” Obama said. “That’s not just my opinion, by the way. That’s the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices who said this wasn’t even a close case.” [snip]

Overturning the law would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate. “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

That cheap suit law lecturer (not professor) Barack Obama must have forgottenMarbury v. Madison as he attacks the court for striking down a law passed “by a majority of members in the House and Senate.” That’s a role of the court – to strike down laws passed by a congress and signed by a president – if it is unconstitutional. That’s what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas – strike down a whole bunch of laws (and in Lawrence abandoned stare decisis by striking down Bowers v. Hardwick) that had been on the books for many years after having been passed by legislators.

Cheap suit law lecturer Barack Obama also did not mention that the “majority” which he speaks of was a singularly partisan majority. As to all those “legal experts” and what they thought before oral argument last week, if Barack Obama relied on those “legal experts” it is a case of the blind leading the blind.

“James Clyburn was the Obama supporter tasked with calling Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton “racist”. Clyburn is a cheap thug disguised as a congressman. He doesn’t wear a hoodie but his specialty is drive-by shootings. Today Obama picked up Clyburn’s gun:”
______________

Remember it well- BC was outraged at the SC election. How can I forget…

Unmentioned by Obama was the ugly argument for banning books which led to the Citizens United decision. The fool leading the fight for Obama at the Supreme Court in the Citizens United battle? It was Elena Kagan whose boobery was rewarded with a Supreme Court appointment.

UPDATE 1: Paul Clement will attack the expansion of Medicaid. He’s talking about whether it’s “coercive,” because if it is, it won’t fit the Spending Power. Justice Kagan wants to know why a “big gift from the Federal Government” is coercion. “The Federal Government is here saying, we are giving you a boatload of money.” Page 3. Just a big old boatload of money is coercive, Clement says confidently. But the actual bill has a “very big condition.” Kagan interrupts, trying to make her point that a big boatload of money is not coercive. What if someone offered you a job and would pay you $10 million a year. Of course, you say yes, but you’re not coerced are you? Clement lays down one of the cleverest teasers I have ever heard: “Well, I guess I would want to know where the money came from.”

“Wow. Wow.” says Kagan. Has a Supreme Court ever said “Wow. Wow” before? She can’t believe you’d do anything other than snap up that money. “I’m offering you $10 million a year to come work for me, and you are saying that this is anything but a great choice?”

Clement springs his trap: “Sure, if I told you, actually, it came from my own bank account.”

admin
April 2nd, 2012 at 4:13 pm
—————–
Admin, you raise a very uncomfortable question and Kagan should have recused herself having been in this administration and especially after her congratulatory ejaculation when she heard that the bill passed.

“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an UNPRECEDENTED, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Well, actually, the Supreme court has overturned lots of laws passed by a majority of Congress. I think around 158 of them. It’s sort of what they do. It’s very precedented. What a freaking demagogue.

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

“Obama said the Supreme Court should not engage in “judicial activism” and added, “That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law is a good example of that.” ”

Apparently the US Constitution is just a piece of toilet paper to him. Congress can pass all sorts of crap, but it has to be bound by the Consitution. Sometimes, the Supreme Ct makes a mistake of calling bad laws “constitution” (like segregation), and then they are overruled by 2/3rds of the states. Sometimes the law itself is so bad & so outside the bounds of federal reach, most americans hate it & recognize the overreach, and so the Supreme Ct overturns it — as is the case with ObamaCare.

Admin, exactly what I found; I did not enhance it, just saved as the clearest possible tool; and just zoomed in. There were clear marks, that appeared to be wounds on Zimmerman’s head; it is also to be noted that a broken nose, other than blood that may have been wiped away, does not show up right away.

tim, I used to live in SC, and always despised Clyburn. His district is the poorest of the rural poor, NO jobs, and he spends his days funneling govt money and contracts to his rich cronies in the area, including family members. He does JACK SQUAT for the people of his district. I drove through there many times, and it’s just sad.

Why on God’s green earth are they, the media, still using that photo of Trayvon when he was just a kid…thinking it makes him look innocent? Is that not inciting a riot?
I did see one photo when he was a baby, but they also showed others, but not the ones on Trayvon’s twitter account where he had gold teeth, tatoos, and had his pants on the ground.

We discussed the Chapman case in the comments as they occurred and how the story made no sense. Now it begins to make sense. We did not know at the time so no one discussed this however and it is a shocker:

The Independent (UK) highlights the six hundredth revelation that Iraqi informant “Curveball” lied. They bury the actual new news — that the FBI felt it had to move quickly to arrest and deport Anna Chapman, for fear that someone close to Obama was about to snork her, and get caught in a “honey trap” (sex, followed by extortion for secrets/influence).

Another revelation in the series is the real reason why the FBI swooped on Russian spy Anna Chapman in 2010. Top officials feared the glamorous Russian agent wanted to seduce one of US President Barack Obama’s inner circle. Frank Figliuzzi, the FBI’s head of counterintelligence, reveals how she got “closer and closer to higher and higher ranking leadership... she got close enough to disturb us”.

The fear that Chapman would compromise a senior US official in a “honey trap” was a key reason for the arrest and deportation of the Russian spy ring of 10 people, of which she was a part, in 2010. “We were becoming very concerned,” he says. “They were getting close enough to a sitting US cabinet member that we thought we could no longer allow this to continue.” Mr Figliuzzi refuses to name the individual who was being targeted.

The media walkbacks in the Trayvon Martin shooting case are piling up.

ABC News has pulled the plug on its breakthrough video showing an uninjured Zimmerman being taken to the police station.; their new, enhanced video “Shows Injury”. Oops. In related report, a local news outlet had reported a chat with Zimmerman’s neighbor, who said George was bandaged and bruised. Obviously, this supports Zimmerman’s self-defense story. Or, if you prefer, it makes it harder for a prosecutor to overcome his self-defense claim.

NBC News is investigating their deplorable editing of a video in which they trimmed part of Zimmerman’s 911 call down to “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” Oops.

And the NY Times has quashed the “Large Scary Man Chasing Helpless Child” meme with the news that Zimmerman weighed 170 pounds and Martin weighed 150. Oops. Obviously, this makes Zimmerman’s self-defense story more plausible, as even Charles Blow should admit.

Not surprising by these chicago thugs. I remember noticing that, and letting Hillary’s campaign know, but when the deceit is so widespread and constant, its was hard for her camp to bring attention to it, especially with a complicit and compliant media.

Remember, he had palestians phone banking for him as well, I can’t find the video, but I remember seeing it.

Unit 400
Iranian Hit Squad Dispatched by Khamenei Across World
Plans Attacks on Jewish and American Interests

April 2, 2012

The Iranians have dispatched a network of covert assassins to hit Jewish, Israeli and Western targets in Turkey, Sky News reports. And now the surreptitious hit-squad has finally been given a name: Unit 400.

Unit 400 is a top-secret “special ops” unit within the elite overseas wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force (IRGC-QF). It plans and carries out terror attacks on external targets, and provides material support to foreign militia groups, at the direct behest of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. This is in accordance with the regime’s core strategic considerations about how best to challenge perceived enemies in Israel and the west – through asymmetric warfare – and to cope with mounting international pressure over its nuclear programme.

The commanders of the group has been identified as Hamed Abdellahi and Majid Alavi, the former deputy minister in Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

The document went on to note that, “[the] Supreme Leader makes a decision to conduct an attack, the Unit activates a cell to perform it and recruits foreign agents as required… Training is sometimes given in Iran, as was the case prior to an attempted attack on the Israeli consul in Istanbul in 2011, and additional countries in the Middle East and Europe are used in order to blur Iran’s connection to the attack.”

An intelligence official who spoke with Sky News on the matter also noted that the group was most likely responsible for the attempted assassination of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador in Washington last year. And there is no doubt that the hit squad is an integral part of the continued tit-for-tat strategy between Iran, Israel and the U.S. that includes the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists and the recent attempt made on the lives of Israeli diplomats in Tbilisi, Georgia, New Delhi and Bangkok.

The report concluded that, “The overall picture is one of an organisation which reaches out across the globe to commit carefully planned terror attacks of its own accord, as well as to arm proxy groups that will do so on its behest.”

There are indications that the group has been given the green light to step up their activities in a show of Iran’s ‘asymmetric’ global power, especially in light of the heightened rhetoric over an Israeli or joint American strike on the Persian state.

Ever notice the stage when ObaMAO speaks? Something is missing. Have you figured out what it is? The flag[s] are missing. There now are ugly bright yellow curtains (do those curtains mean something in Islam?) as a back drop. During the Reagan, Poppa Bush, Clinton, Baby Bush reigns in the White House the backdrop was the USA flag, or many of them. Why not now?[That was a rhetorical question]

Also, it was on the news that Biden prefers the Senate to a real job.

And a newly coined word is making its way around in email:

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

JanH, unfortunately in order to stop bad habits imported from DailyKooks and DimU we are having to, at times, waste our time and yours and place every comment on moderation. One person makes a personal attack and then there is a response followed by response followed by a comment followed by a call to stop followed by more nonsense and the spiral down begins. A cooling down moderation period appears to unfortunately work to temper tempers.

This website is an oasis for Hillary Clinton supporters. Hillary Clinton supporters should not attack Hillary Clinton supporters. Anyone that wants to be beaten up for expressing a point of view or beat up opposing point of views in a personal manner can get their sadistic/masochistic desires met at the DailyKooks and assorted Hopium dens.

We are decided “liberals” in our commenting policy. Unlike many websites we do not demand that only the article we write be discussed. Some, if not many, of our points of view expressed in the articles we write have been strongly disagreed with in the comments. One person stomped off with the ridiculous accusation that we were anti-gay while another was angry we bought lock stock and barrel into the gay agenda. One commenter left because we beat up Willard too much even though we have beaten up/spoken the truth about every Republican candidate not to mention the Boob. These people left on their own not because we told them to leave or even suggested they leave. They were more than welcome to post all the information they wanted but they preferred to stomp off. We have never attacked those who repeatedly post information (or even opinion) as “blog hogs”.

When a point of view is backed up with sound information and addresses the issue questioned, not evaded, this is all to the good. We like the conversational way the comments section develops new information and new sources of information. It is entirely appropriate to question sources of information. The comments that indulge in evasions and misinformation reflect on the commenter.

Disagreements with comments or even other commenters may be easily made without personal attacks or vitriol. We are not going to conduct a remedial English class on how to write without personal attacks being made. We are also not going to make discussions of tiresome topics such as this a habit.

This blunt instrument we are using is not the only device at our disposal. Certainly you JanH are one of the commenters who most posts informational articles which stimulate conversation and research and it is unfortunate that the moderation policy must be so broad. Again, we are not going to make a habit of this type of discussion.

This is an oasis for Hillary Clinton supporters. This oasis is situated on a Big Pink Aircraft Carrier. Attacks from the Big Pink aircraft carrier should be launched at the Hopium Dens and the Boob not each other.

There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference. [snip]

To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it.

That unfortunate outcome would risk dragging the court down to the partisan level of a Congress that passed the law without a single Republican vote. As much as the public dislikes the individual mandate, a party-line split would not be a healthy outcome for public confidence in the court’s integrity.

And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.” [snip]

But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion.

I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice.

Worse, the president’s critique, and in particular the reference to “unelected” judges, buys into an unfortunate and largely unwarranted conservative critique of judicial power. We want our judges unelected. We want them to have the final constitutional say. The president should be arguing for a second term to prevent the court from tipping in an even more conservative direction, not channeling tired critiques from the right about activist judges legislating from the bench.

“The comments that indulge in evasions and misinformation reflect on the commenter.”
____________

This statement I’m sorry to say, temps logic. How is the everyday reader of Pink supposed to disseminate good information from erroneous information if the commentator in question is out of bounds to challenge?

It’s that simple. This will not become a topic of endless discussion. It won’t. Someone makes a statement that is disagreed with either disagree with the statement or scroll on by. No personal attacks. Personal attacks will be removed and probably placed back after a time, possibly a long time.

admin, I’m curious, do you think OTurd was leaked the vote tally, especially from Kagan?
My sense is yes, he did get a leak from Kagan, I cannot think of any other justice who is more closely aligned with OTurd, she worked for him only about 1 yr ago.

Justified or not, the Supreme Court has a kind of sacred status in American life. For whatever reason, Presidents can safely run against Congress, and vice versa, but I think there is an inherent popular aversion to assaults on the court itself. Perhaps it has to do with an instinctive belief that life needs umpires, even ones who blow calls now and then.

The liberals cite the close 5:4 Bush V. Gore and trying to intimidate if the healthcare vote is as close as that, it is all political. But listening to Althouse about Bush V. Gore via this link made me look at B v. G differently and even Gore thinks now it was a mistake to have not gone for the statewide recount (at least that is my understanding). So who was being political B v. G, the 4 liberal judges?

I don’t ever remember a time in modern history where a sitting president acted like a king, and thinks the supreme court is under his rule, and so attacks it.
Bush 1 did not, clinton did not, bush 2 did not, reagan did not, carter did not.

Only FDR attacked the court, even when he stacked it with his people, and they still ruled against his policies many times.

Is the supreme ct is irresponsible to tally for this awful law, fine, it will be overturned by the people themselves.

As for constitutional professor, I don’t buy it for one second, the OTurd has not published one single brief, or white paper on anything, nothing. There is no indication he’s what the media claims he is

We discussed the Chapman case in the comments as they occurred and how the story made no sense. Now it begins to make sense. We did not know at the time so no one discussed this however and it is a shocker:
___________

I think I need a refresher if you can repost our comments on this topic, it would be appreciated.

SCATHING letter to NAACP from a Zimmerman family member. He was far from a racist:

“There has been an unprecedented rush to judge George regardless of the facts. The black community as a whole has turned their backs and blindly followed the furor stirred up by self-proclaimed leaders of your community. These leaders have rallies and chant horrible things of a person they know nothing about.” (RELATED: Full coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting)

The letter also described how Zimmerman was one of “very few” in Sanford, Fla., who spoke out publicly to condemn the “beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer.”

“Do you know the individual that stepped up when no one else in the black community would?” the family member wrote. “Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church‐goers to get out of church so that he could hand them fliers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8th, 2011 at Sanford City Hall??”

“That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN. Ironic isn’t it?”

“The main point for this letter is to explain to you that the black community has labeled George a racist without any investigation at all,” the letter continued. “Regardless of the fact that George personally spoke to many of your constituents, not one has stepped forward and said, ‘Hey I know that face. That is the Hispanic guy that was standing up for Sherman Ware. That was the only non‐black face in the meetings for justice in this case.’”

“You know as well as I do that there are many NAACP followers that recognize George from the Ware case as well as many other good things that he’s done for the black community.”

Regardless of the details, the effective action of Bush’s SC was to run out the clock. Better they should have put the clock on hold and settled the whole thing properly, with a statewide recount or whatever it would have taken.

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected [….]

=========================

That fits the pattern of the last several decades (Reagan, Bushes, Obama defeating Gore, Palin, Hillary — with Bill as the exception). So — if the winners are so inept, how do they manage to get elected? Perhaps by support of the corporate media, who would be threatened by a more capable POTUS from either party.

The naughty question which intrigues is whether Obama was told by Kagan what the results of the Friday vote was? Is that what triggered Obama today?
________

I think so, and it’s likely he knows it will be struck down. He’s prepping for the victim act. Dividing the country in order to destroy it is the goal. His pundits are already depicting the court’s constitutional concerns as “insensitive to the crisis”.

I just watched a video collection of black people, including the lady with the odd cowboy hat, telling us that what happened
between Zimmerman and Martin was a hate crime and racist, and I finally agreed it is. The hate by the people in these video clips for white America is fully exposed, they are breathtakingly racist.

the public itself has been steadfastly opposed to the law since day one. Against that backdrop, it’s an amazing show of balls by The One to dress this up as the Court somehow thwarting the people’s will.

==========================

O’s logic is interesting.

If the voters really support this law, then they can have their representatives quickly pass a new version that would not have these constitutional problems.

But that’s not possible, becasue the Dems no longer have the super majority and the Speaker who got it passed.

So the only way to follow the will of the people is to keep the people from getting another shot at it?

I think I’ll go get drunk out of a Klein bottle. Anyone want to join me?

Yes, turndown. And as for question (1), there are still a range of possibilities besides cold-blooded murder. It could have been self defense. It could have been a fight that got out of hand, and thus manslaughter. The gun may have gone off in a struggle. Or some gray area in between.

There is a LOT of stuff the public is not privy to. Autopsy, gunshot residue, any prints on the gun, medical reports of Z’s injuries, etc. It’s insane to state with certainty “I KNOW exactly what happened”.

This really rubs me the wrong way. Its like spitting in their faces.
What about all the czars? None of them are elected, what about HHS Sebelies shoving all sorts of rules and nonsense on Americans? She’s not elected!

I would also add that previous presidents have, in stump speeches, taken issue with certain of the court’s decisions. Usually very carefully. That part is not new.

But Obama took it further, and crossed a line in both tone and content, IMO – especially after his arrogant display of scolding the justices to their faces at that shameful SOTU. He is openly attacking the legitimacy and process of the Supreme Court itself, not just the potential adverse ruling. That’s dangerous ground, and not something presidents have done. He is not saying “I think you are wrong.” He is saying “Who the hell are you to decide this?”

That’s some breathtaking arrogance right there. And I hope SCOTUS hands him his ass.

The first lady tried to enlist “Families for Obama” at an event with tickets starting at $500 a pop at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park on Friday.

The pool reporter estimated that there were a couple dozen kids in the audience of about 350, and Michelle Obama spent much of her speech talking to them.

“I mean, I can’t tell you in the last election how many grandparents I ran into who said, I wasn’t going to vote for Barack Obama until my grandson talked to me, until my great-grandson talked to me, and talked about the future he wanted for this country,” she said.

“You can get out there with your parents. You guys can knock on doors. I had one young lady who brought me a petition — she’s already working. You can convince wrong people. Sometimes we don’t listen to ourselves, but we will listen to our children.”

That petition was handed to her by a Code Pink activist who bought a ticket and handed Obama a “no war on Iran” with a purported 20,000 signatures. The antiwar group said the signatures included Gloria Steinem. [snip]

“And let’s not forget how my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices,” Obama said. And let’s not forget how, for the first time in history, our daughters and our sons watched three women take their seats on our nation’s highest court. And we are now feeling the impact of those court decisions and what effect that will have on our children’s lives for decades to come — on their privacy and security, on whether they can speak freely, worship openly, and, yes, love whomever they choose.”

For a cool $38,500, a family of six could get a photo with the first lady at the event.

Mark Levin has a tough video which reminds his audience that the fugitive slave acts were passed by Congress. According to Obama the unelected Supreme Court should not have considered striking these laws.

The letter also described how Zimmerman was one of “very few” in Sanford, Fla., who spoke out publicly to condemn the “beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer.”

====================

If true, THAT’s a bit of evidence that the Sanford police may not be entirely fair, then and now. But perhaps they would have a grudge against Zimmerman from the old case, to balance any police racism in the new case.

“I mean, I can’t tell you in the last election how many grandparents I ran into who said, I wasn’t going to vote for Barack Obama until my grandson talked to me, until my great-grandson talked to me, and talked about the future he wanted for this country,” she said.

I know you like reliving the glory days, but I got news for you, cupcake. This is not 2008. The grandsons and great-grandsons are done with college now, and have a mountain of debt and no jobs. Either that or they are “so over” the whole Obama thing, and have moved on. I don’t think they’ll be doing a lot of gushing to granny in 2012.

turndown, they should have separated any concern over the police not investigating further from George himself. Not the same issue. The police there could be racist, or they could just be lazy asses who had a plausible explanation so didn’t dig further. Or there may be a LOT of evidence that it was indeed self defense, so they figured they had no winnable case for anything else.

But I don’t blame the family for wanting more investigation. Not at all. I do blame the Sharptons and Jacksons and Spike Lees for making it a racial witch hunt for political shit-stirring purposes.

What we are seeing now from Obama (and his butt boy Clyburn) is the politics of delusion. First, Obama gives the court a lousy law, then he presents a lousy case and then he tells them that if they rule against him then they are defying the will of the people–even though the people oppose the bill by a 2-1 majority.

If I were asked to comment on the efficacy of this strategy, then I might he has now made it harder for his allies on the court to withstand the compelling arguments of the conservative majority to strike down the law. Why? Because Obama has turned this into an attack on the separation of powers and the institution.

And when he said FDR did the same thing, I would say is Obama is no more FDR than Quayle was JFK, the New Deal was not opposed by the American People, etc.

By attacking the court as an institution, he makes it harder for his own allies on the court to hold the line. It might—might—might produce a 6-3 decision. Breyer’s questions would indicate otherwise, but a scholar at red state showed that he was in error on each of those questions and by now I assume his law clerks have told him so.

Did you perchance notice the video on Jacobsen’s site of Margarita Cansino? Astaire said she was his best dance partner–better than Ginger Rogers, Cyd Charisse (my favorite), or any of the others. When Harry Cohen ran Columbia she and Glenn Ford were leading actors, and they despised him–as did most of Hollywood. She had a string of marriages including to Orson Welles–who did the Lady for Shangahi with her. My favorite movie of hers was Sadie Thompson which was a remake of the silent movie Rain by Somerset Maugham, and Pal Joey with Frank Sinatra. Her motto was spanish proverb take what you want from life–and pay for it. She has a marker on the street of diamonds which reads Rita Hayworth.

He is openly attacking the legitimacy and process of the Supreme Court itself, not just the potential adverse ruling. That’s dangerous ground, and not something presidents have done.

=================

To indulge in tinfoil for a minute. This reminds me of him attacking the institution of the Superdelegates and in fact trying to change the rules (while accusing the other side, who was playing by the existing rules, of changing them).

So that fits right in with the idea of trying to destroy the Constitution in service of some world conspiracy…. /tinfoil

I am not defending Bill, but simply making a point. If Obama is so delusional that he thinks he will be re-elected easily, despite his track record of failure, then why not reinforce that delusion. I would rather have him off guard than on guard–wouldn’t you. These are after all politicians. The statement is political–not analytical and in no way predictive.

The naughty question which intrigues is whether Obama was told by Kagan what the results of the Friday vote was? Is that what triggered Obama today?
—————————
Yes. Kagen was a partisan in this matter, refused to recuse herself on this case when by all that is right she should have and my guess is that she did inform Obama people, but it would be hard to prove. Bear in mind she has never been a judge before, and judging by her questions to Clement, it does not come easily for her.

I can think of no other reason why Obama would come out with this now. I doubt Desoto would do it, and I am confident that Ginzburg did not. Both of them were judges prior to being appointed. Within limits they are in control. Kagen strikes me as someone who is out of control. Lets hope I am wrong.

Lets put this Obama lie big media lie to rest. He is NOT an expert on the Constitution. The only provision he taught was the 14th Amendment, the Slaughter House cases, Plessey vs Ferguson, Brown vs Board. The rest of it is a blur to him. Trust me he aint that smart.

wbboei, these arrests are bizarre to me too.
—————————–
One final point. These questionable arrests are an acute embarrassment to Obama. Only a week before he and the Russian President were making woopie at a local hamburger stand. If he knew these arrests were imminent, he should have given his Russian counterpart some kind of heads up to save face. And if he did not know that they were imminent, then you have to wonder why his attorney general did not tell him as per sop. The impression I get is that Barack does not know how to manage his own bureaucracy. Maybe the Nobel Academy has a crash course of the subject for one of its prized students.

Admin and wbboei, I have not researched much on the Chapman case, but were I an enterprising Republican I’d start looking to see if any threads lead under Holder’s door. Because if there is coverup and corruption afoot, you can bet your sweet ass that Holder is immersed in it up to his bulgy little eyeballs. Keeping the dirt off of Obama is his primary job.

HillaryForTexas, we’re trying to find the comments we made on the Chapman case from way back when in 2010. The case at the time never made any sense. There were a lot of FBI agents wasting a lot of time on what appeared to be a bunch of clowns. Why waste so many resources (as we recall they staked out a tree for years round the clock to see if there would be a “drop” there) when spies get much more information from hacking than from going person to person.

Now we know, or think we know, that possibly what the foolish spies were after was Obama officials to um, penetrate. You’re right about Holder. He knew. What did he know and when did he know it?

Speaking of Holder, I think that Issa is playing his hand well. People are mad because Fast and Furious seems to have “gone away”, but I think Issa has a three part strategy here. Part one was to get the info out there, make a big splash, get people fired up or at least somewhat familiar with it. There is no intent, at this first stage, to go the whole nine yards. This is the set up – plowing the ground in the public eye, so when the sh*t hits the fan, you don’t have to get bogged down explaining what the program even was. People will be already at least vaguely familiar with it.

Stage two is to pull back from seeking headlines, and just wait, quietly getting ducks in a row and gathering the dirt. That’s where we are now.

Stage three is blindsiding Obama and Holder with lots of new stuff on this “dead issue” at the proper time before the election. I think Issa is a crafty old thing. I think Holder and Obama are sighing in relief that they have managed to both weather the storm and have succeeded in shoving it under a rug.
And I think they are wrong, but that it suits Issa just now to let them think that.

General Services Administration head Martha Johnson has resigned along with two of her deputies, reportedly over an impending inspector general’s report detailing lavish spending on a Vegas conference for a handful of government employees:

Organizers spent $835,000 on the event, which was attended by 300 employees. The expenses included $147,000 in airfare and lodging at the hotel for six planning trips by a team of organizers. Among the other expenses were $3,200 for a mind reader; $6,300 on commemorative coin set displayed in velvet boxes and $75,000 on a training exercise to build a bicycle.

“When the White House was informed of the Inspector General’s findings we acted quickly to determine who was responsible for such a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars,” White House Chief of State Jack Lew said in a statement to The Washington Post. President Obama “was outraged by the excessive spending, questionable dealings with contractors, and disregard for taxpayer dollars,” Lew said, “and called for all those responsible to be held fully accountable.”

The GSA is basically the federal government’s office managers, providing things like office space, desks, and cars to other agencies. One of its charges is to develop cost-saving administrative strategies.

Admin: the senior official in the inner circle of Obama who was about to spill the beans is probably David Axelrod. He has secret service protection, but he does snip away from them from time to time. Notice they got him out of Washington DC at or near that time, sent him back to Chicago to work on Obama’s 2012 campaign so goes the story. I suspect Chapman does s&m, and that may be a hot button for David. Of course, I am just guessing. But it seems to fit.

My hero George Kennan who would be 108 this year if he was still living said this in his last book Around The Cragged Hill:

No regime lasts forever . . . None is entirely secure . . . The heights each occupies always becomes sooner or later a beseiged fortress. Every one of them is confronted by others anxious and striving to occupy the heights in its place. And awareness of this fact is what causes each of them, whether brought to power by a democratic process, or (like Obama) by other means, to constitute a conspiracy against all that lies outside its ranks, and presents a real or potential threat to its power.

He never lived to see Obama installed as President, but these words certainly apply to him and his entourage. In these, the dying days of his presidency, it is good form to assure Obama that he will easily win a second term. As Christ said, answer a fool in the manner of his foolishness, lest he be wise in his conceit.

I forgot to mention Emanuel. Yes, he is also a possibility. I remember the story about his confrontation with the New York Congressman in the shower room in the Congressional gym. He is loud, lewd and boisterous. But for those reasons, I doubt it is him. Also, he left to run for the job of Mayor of Chicago with Daley Jr. stepping down–and he won. I still think it is Axelrod–and I rather suspect there was at least one liaison between David and Chapman which was caught on FBI surveillance–and that is why everything is in a panic now. But I am not Brian Williams. I do not make unsubstantiated allegations as if they were fact. I am merely speculating.

Palin on the Today Show. When introduced Palin was sitting on a sofa behind a broadsheet newspaper surrounded by newspapers. She looks very good, dressed in black with a big, glistening, American flag pin.

On VP choice this time compared with now she stands on her record. She says it doesn’t matter who gets nominated “they will get clobbered by the lame stream media… there will be a double standard applied.” Palin repeatedly used the term “lame stream media” on the Today Show of all places and stated the person selected by the Republicans would be “clobbered” no matter how much or how little experience or national reputation. She advises Romney (if he is the nominee) to “go rogue” in his selection.

wbboei, I have seen it speculated that Anna Chapman could have been working on Peter Orzsag. Larry Summers also left the adminstration sometime back then, right? I sure hope that she wasn’t trying to target Bill since she set up shop in NYC.

Got up early just to watch Gov Palin on NBC, LOL. It must hurt them to have to be nice to her, some of them look uncomfortable around her, considering many of them made fun of her in the past. Al Roker and she seem to be getting along the best. Not a fan of this show, but glad to watch it because of Palin.

To save her network Palin advices Oprah to get more conservatives on. Star Jones wanted to say something nasty but restrained herself as time ran out on that question’s time.

After Oprah the topic is Jessica Simpson and whether she is fat. Asked what she would do if what happened to Simpson happened to her Palin said she “would punch them in the neck.

Next up was a reverse Facebook which allows enemies to be the object of the site. Palin brings up the hate of Bill Maher as Deutsch tries to comment that that is what happens to Obama. Palin retorts that saying ABO is not hate.

Ashton Kutcher playing Steve Jobs has Palin grimacing. Palin asks the panel if they have experience with anyone portraying them. Palin states she has never seen the Tina Fey movie.

In short, Palin did very well in the banter while getting her shots in.

Good for Sarah for punching back at these know-it-all idiots. I agree with the other commentators, I will not watch Matt Lauer, haven’t watched the show for years, but if Palin’s on I will watch (or Hillary). No one else.

Must be so painful for these people to have to sit there and not be their nasty selves to her.

Tim, Palin must be surprising those who think she is a dope. She is charming, smart, able to get her points across with ease. And, apologies for this but it must be said – she looks great. The all black slack outfit accented with a vivid scarf (removed in the panel segment) draped around her looks fantastic. That stud belt we mentioned sets the whole thing off.

Lavender/purple is the Today Show default color today. Deutsch had on a silk purple/lavender tie that exactly matched Star Jones’ dress. There was a woman doctor wearing a pantsuit on the segment as well and she was very friendly towards Palin.

Palin was also on a segment with Tori Spelling (she’s still around?). Spelling wore a lightly hued lavender/purple dress. Palin talked about childbearing briefly with Spelling.

Palin up soon giving advice on how to raise confident teen aged girls.

Southern Born, we’re watching the entire painful thing. Every second we smile realizing that everyone on that set (especially Matt Lauer) knows that they have Sarah Palin on to save them from — Katie Couric! Instant Karma.

Raising confident teenage girls segment. Four women on including Palin. Dr. Taylor is another one with a light hued purple/lavender dress (keeping up with the purple/lavender theme we suppose). Haley Kilpatrick (we don’t know who any of these people are) is talking about cheering on your daughters and teaching them to keep trying. Dr. Taylor says the job is to teach how to make decisions. Palin says kids want boundaries. Segment ends.

Tim, these people dare criticize Palin when after watching this show the only conclusion can be how insipid and brain numbing this show is. Brain death. Dated. Self-absorbed. It’s like going to a mausoleum watching these lost career “stars” and interviewers.

I find this story absolutely amazing. On Friday, conservative bloggers were sarcastically wondering if Kagan or Sotomayor were going to leak the decision to Obama. Monday morning, Obama is in front of cameras attacking the Supreme Court.

People talk about Biden’s inability to keep a secret, but Obama is even worse! In poker terms, this guy is an easy read! I’ll bet that in his mind, he has no idea that he has let on that he knows.

If nothing else, this “advance warning” should give the insurance companies a few months to start retooling their business plans for the Obamacare strikedown. Which means that Obama did business a favor for once.

Regardless of the details, the effective action of Bush’s SC was to run out the clock. Better they should have put the clock on hold and settled the whole thing properly, with a statewide recount or whatever it would have taken.
————————-

But it was not their job to institute a remedy for an election gone wild or settle anything. So I don’t know how they could have suggested a statewide recount and say go back and do it right. If they did that in FL, what about other states where one or the other candidate has a grievance?

Caught the tail end of Palin on today. She explained why she was wearing what she wore. Something about her pink(lavender?) suit she brought with her being the same suit she wore for an interview with Lauer 4 years ago. Nice allusion to bring back what they did to her 4 years ago. She is very clever. Street smart. Wish she had a bit more book smart too and she would be a complete package (not the least of which is her looks). From my Alaska trip, I know however, that Alaskans are very beautiful people, may be something about all that cold and pure air.

Loved how Palin used her clothing to bring attention to how these leeches ripped and treated her so unfairly 4 years ago, and she’s still standing. Excellent move on Palin’s part.

pm317, I’ve listed to her in her briefings when she was governor, she is very smart, she may not be knowledgable about everything, but really who is? But she has an assest very rarely seen in many politicians, curiosity & humility about seeing all sides & what she may not be knowledable about, and then learn it.

50 yr old white man beaten with a hammer by 2 black youths, just 6 miles from where Trayvon was shot. This blog claims that the Orlando Sentinel first published the report with mug shots, then later removed the pics and purposely eliminated any mention of race in the article.

Don’t get me wrong. I am very impressed with how she has utilized every opportunity given to her to maximum effect. If she had been a bit more book smart, it would have totally killed the liberal haters.

Powerline blog scoffs at the recent panic polls. He quotes some internals about undersampled R women. And this:

What is going on here is that the Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill are looking at their own poll results and seeing the potential for a blowout in November. If Democrats thought President Obama had a defensible record, they would be talking about the economy, not about contraceptives and hoodies. And if their own surveys showed Democrats running strongly, they would be appealing to independent and centrist voters, not trying to motivate their base with feminist and racial controversies that are unpopular with the general public.

He’s trying to gin up the base. You don’t do that in a general election unless the base is all you have left.

I recorded the Today show because I had a few errands to run this morning… I’m just now watching Sarah operate on these buzzards like Donnie Deutsch, Star Jones and Nancy Snyderman.

I had to laugh given the loudest critics of Jessica Simpson’s pregnancy weight gain is always consistent with people that have never had children. Sarah’s right- It’s no one’s business.

I have to say, Sarah was very kind to Oprah, even though we know Oprah is as biased and as racist as they come. Her response to helping Oprah’s ratings; having Republicans on her show was a brilliant zinger.. Hearing this, a frantic Oprah must have reached for a big bowl of comfort food- a hidden casserole of mac and cheese for these types of emergencies.

6:10 p.m. Secretary Clinton delivers remarks on the upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago to the World Affairs Council 2012 NATO Conference, at the Sheraton Waterside Hotel, in Norfolk, Virginia. Please click here for more information. Watch a livestream of this event on http://www.state.gov.
(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)
Sheraton Norfolk Waterside Hotel; 777 Waterside Drive; Norfolk,VA 23510
All media must be in place by 4:30 p.m.

I remember a clip of Oprah and Gayle when they went camping.. They tried making M&C on the barbie- that was funny.. Oprah was so out of her element camping in the great outdoors surrounded by canopy’s of giant trees and woodland creatures scurrying around doing what they do… looking for food.. they made her so nervous, she was unable to sleep without ear-plugs and an eye mask until it was time for breakfast.

This video is a follow-up to Adrian Murray’s facebook post over the weekend, in which he says that he donated to the Obama campaign as “Adolph Hitler,” occupation “Dictator” living at a German address. As you can see in the clip, citizen journalist George Scaggs of Austin tries the same thing at three different campaign sites, that of Obama, Romney and Santorum. Only the Obama site accepted the donation without the verification number.

Let’s take a look at the three campaign websites mentioned in the video. Here’s Obama’s donation page. All of the following graphics can be enlarged by clicking on them.

I find this story absolutely amazing. On Friday, conservative bloggers were sarcastically wondering if Kagan or Sotomayor were going to leak the decision to Obama. Monday morning, Obama is in front of cameras attacking the Supreme Court.
————————

We also know how conniving and deceitful Obama is and how everything is played to his political gain. Knowing that, I am beginning to think why he did this obvious thing. Maybe he does not know what the decision is but wants to pretend he does and wants to start a reaction from people who don’t want it stricken down as another way of intimidating the supremes.

Powerline article:
If Democrats thought President Obama had a defensible record, they would be talking about the economy, not about contraceptives and hoodies. And if their own surveys showed Democrats running strongly, they would be appealing to independent and centrist voters, not trying to motivate their base with feminist and racial controversies that are unpopular with the general public.

H4T said:
He’s trying to gin up the base. You don’t do that in a general election unless the base is all you have left.

====================

Powerline thinks those controversies are unpopular? Probably a garbled sentence.

I agree that top Democrats should be talking about larger issues. But lots of independent and centrist voters wear hoodies and use contraceptives, though I hope not at the same time. 😉

Some may disagree with me, but I think this is part of the problem. From Althouse:

Amongst the conlawprofs, it’s an idea so standard as to be boringly banal: The courts should vigorously enforce individual rights, confidently stepping up to a countermajoritarian role, but when it comes to the “structural” parts of the Constitution — like federalism and separation of powers — the courts should defer to Congress.

I take strong issue with that. Why are the “structural” parts of the constitution, like federalism and separation of powers, seen as somehow expendable, not to be “vigorously enforced” by the court?

The structure of our constitution is just as vital to preserving liberty as anything in the bill of rights is. A government not bound by the federalism inherent in our form of govt will eventually get around to intruding on those other liberties, by means of the simple fact that it will have become powerful and centralized enough to do so.

I’m not some idiot who wants to go back to a 1700’s agrarian style society. I understand that we need a larger govt than they ever dreamed of. But that doesn’t mean that one should just throw out protecting that wise diffusion of power because it doesn’t matter anymore. It matters. A lot.

April 3rd, 2012 at 10:20 am
As Christ said, answer a fool in the manner of his foolishness, lest he be wise in his conceit.
=================
What does that mean?
————–
I thought about this, too. I think it might mean that if one should answer a foolish person in a foolish way (in the manner of a fool), one gives the fool credibility in some way. So, one’s answer should be well thought out so as to discredit the fool.

wbboei, I have seen it speculated that Anna Chapman could have been working on Peter Orzsag. Larry Summers also left the adminstration sometime back then, right? I sure hope that she wasn’t trying to target Bill since she set up shop in NYC.
—————————-
Tim, I get the sense this is Obama’s small tight inner circle. PO and LS were never a part of that. It is either Axelrod or Emanuel, and when you use the words working on–that is precisely the expression. I think it is more probable than not that this is an s&m club. She must be offering services that they cannot get elsewhere in a town that has so many other outlets. And that is the only thing I can think of that would engender the reaction. And I am pretty damned sure it happened–not that it was about to happen. I think Axelrod is good for it. He is the perfect bottom–as Camille Paglia would say.

April 3rd, 2012 at 10:20 am
As Christ said, answer a fool in the manner of his foolishness, lest he be wise in his conceit.
=================
What does that mean?
————–
I thought about this, too. I think it might mean that if one should answer a foolish person in a foolish way (in the manner of a fool), one gives the fool credibility in some way. So, one’s answer should be well thought out so as to discredit the fool.
_____________

Amongst the conlawprofs, it’s an idea so standard as to be boringly banal: The courts should vigorously enforce individual rights, confidently stepping up to a countermajoritarian role, but when it comes to the “structural” parts of the Constitution — like federalism and separation of powers — the courts should defer to Congress.
——————————-
What a non-sequitur that is.

If it were true, then Marbury vs Madison would have been decided differently.

And just who are these conlawprofs who say the court must defer to Congress when it passes legislation that is offensive to the separation of powers and federalism?

Show me who they are and I will show you a gaggle of idiots.

Of course we do have Obama–a lecturer in Con Law. An idiot? Res Ipsa Locuitur–the thing speaks for itself.

But remember that word “sophistry”, because that is what you get from him whenever he opens his mouth.

April 3rd, 2012 at 10:20 am
As Christ said, answer a fool in the manner of his foolishness, lest he be wise in his conceit.
=================
What does that mean?
——————-
I interpret it to mean give him enough rope to hang himself, and work against him behind the scenes. Or, don’t let him know you are on to him. Or it is a waste of time to try to teach pigs to sing–and it annoys the pigs–like the Politico crowd. Now there is an s& m shop for you. I wonder if Sullivan has a key to the back door, and Chris Buckley too.

wbboei
April 3rd, 2012 at 11:16 am
—————-
That was me, wbboei, lol. I am laughing about how you referred to Axelrod at the end of your comment. I do not think the little ballerina would be up to it, honestly, unless Anna has a little bit more going on in her private areas than we think, lol.

At one point didn’t Michelle Obama give up her law liscense? Did BO do the same thing at that time? Wbboei, does that mean that she cannot practice law again? I can’t remember the circumstances when she and or he did that can you?

At one point didn’t Michelle Obama give up her law liscense? Did BO do the same thing at that time? Wbboei, does that mean that she cannot practice law again? I can’t remember the circumstances when she and or he did that can you?
——————–
It is a question of state law. Most likely she would need to retake the bar exam.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/arizona-outdoes-everyone-new-anti-abortion-bill
Thu Mar. 29, 2012 1:37 PM PDT
The Arizona bill, (HB 2036), passed in the state Senate on Thursday and will now go before the house. [….] it states that abortion would be banned 20 weeks into a pregnancy. [….]
the bill states that the gestational age of the fetus should be “calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman.”

Hello pm317, actually no, you get a paper ballot if you are “Unaffliated”, you can still vote, I have a couple of cousins in MD, they have voted, they are unaffiliated, and were given a paper ballot.
(you might want to call and double check, but I was just speaking with one of my cousins, and he mentioned he voted today, and I know he’s registered unaffliated)

I am not defending Bill, but simply making a point. If Obama is so delusional that he thinks he will be re-elected easily, despite his track record of failure, then why not reinforce that delusion. I would rather have him off guard than on guard–wouldn’t you. These are after all politicians. The statement is political–not analytical and in no way predictive.

——> I also think that the best way to handle a fraud and narcissist, is to feed him what he wants to hear, and lay down a few banana peels at the top of the stairs, for his inevitable fall.

No use having the Clinton’s go up against the ‘Democrats’ flow…better to stand behind him and give him a pat on the back, (or the ‘shove’) that will throw him off balance.

well, as I said you want to double check, I don’t want to give incorrect info and waste a trip for you. I don’t know if its a statewide policy or varies from county to country. I think my cousins live near paul? arundel county(not sure if I got that completely correct)?, and both went and voted, and I know both are unaffliated. I spoke to one this morning, he came back and told me he did vote and was given a paper ballot…

is there someone you can call in the election board office to check this? that way you’ll know if its statewide policy or just county to county (which seems strange to me), but heck, what do I know? It very well might be that.

You have the option to register with any of Maryland’s recognized political parties. If you choose not to register with a party, you will be registered as “unaffiliated.” If registered as unaffiliated, you will generally not be able to vote in primary elections, but you will be able to vote in any nonpartisan primary election held in your jurisdiction, such as a primary election to select nominees for the board of education, and any general election.

The Obama administration is blaming Israel for the recent rise in global crude oil prices, according to a Sunday report in The World Tribune. The rise in fuel prices is deemed as harming the U.S. economy and has also hurt Obama in the polls as he seeks re-election in November.

The report cited a leading U.S. analyst, Robert Satloff, who returned from talks with Israeli officials.

Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said, according to The World Tribune, that the Israeli leadership saw Washington as attributing the higher gas prices to “Israel’s posturing” on Iran.

“They think the Iranians should be held responsible for the higher gasoline prices,” Satloff was quoted as having said.

He added that the officials told him the Obama administration was staging a campaign to undermine Israel.

“I cannot underscore how deep and visceral the [Israeli] comments of the leaking that came out of Washington were,” Satloff said, noting Israel is alarmed by what officials determined were leaks by the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama of purported Israeli preparations to attack Iran.

The Israeli concerns come in the wake of a report in Foreign Policy magazine last week, according to which Israel has purchased an airfield in Azerbaijan on Iran’s northern border, prompting the United States to watch very closely.

Journalist Mark Perry wrote that the Obama administration is monitoring Israel’s relations with Azerbaijan, particularly its military ties.

The Americans believe Israel may use the site as a springboard for an attack on Iran’s nuclear plants, or as a landing and refueling spot following one. The site could also be used for aircraft needed for search, rescue and recovery in the wake of an attack.

“We’re watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it,” an official told the Foreign Policy writer.

Azeri president Ilham Aliyev later dismissed the speculation and said, “Azerbaijan’s territory will never be used to launch an attack against its neighbor, Iran.”

Saw your link about Van Jones up thread. Althouse had a post on her site and I commented there. If AAs want to give away their vote so easily, more power to them (/snark). Van Jones was probably mocking them for their stupidity.

Here Morris makes the argument that if the Supreme Court throws out Obamacare that his goose is cooked. What does he have to show for the last 3 years? A stimulus that did not work and a law which he as a constitutional scholar of the Blackstone persuasion–not some Harvard gadfly, but a man of legal genuius and insight like Politico told us, knew was unconstitutional but figured he could bludgeon the Supreme Court into upholding or suffer the wrath of Zeus.

Well this Zeus (Obama, surely not me) is a zero. Why? That is the kind of equitable argument that shows up in every court in the land in some variation–yes he committed the crime, but there are these external mitigating circumstance which the court must also consider, within the scope of its equitable powers. Well, guess what? When numb nutz Obama starts threatening the court, how receptive will they be when Keegan or DeSoto make the equitable argument that striking down Obama care will adversely affect his election prospects.

All Obama has really done is inoculate the court against those sort of internal argument. It is a good thing and it is yet another example of the law of holes. When you are in one, stop digging.

OTurd just announced, he would consider the Supreme Court would delegimitize itself if they rule against him. Just WOW.
————————–http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz7WZNjTPRA&feature=related
—————————
And, as the election approaches . . . (clarification: die means die politically, not in any other sense–he needs to live to see it.)

This is freaking ridiculous. Now they are trying to smear Ann Romney by connecting her to SEX TRAFFICKING in a blaring headline. My question is – if she is responsible because she had a blind trust, that partly invested in Goldman Sachs, who owned 11% of the Village voice, and the Voice ran sex trafficking ads in the personals……

Then Obama is a SEX TRAFFICKER because he had like 10 Goldman Sachs employees working in his administration.

In keeping with the recent trend of so-called green companies going into the red, another solar energy company supported by President Obama’s top administration officials declared bankruptcy today.

Solar Trust for America received $2.1 billion in conditional loan guarantees from the Department of Energy — “the largest amount ever offered to a solar project,” according to Energy Secretary Steven Chu — for a project near Blythe, Calif., but declared bankruptcy within a year. It is unclear how much of the guarantee, if any, was actually awarded.

Senior officials in Obama’s administration had very high hopes for the Blythe project. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar attended the groundbreaking ceremony, which he described as “a historic moment in America’s new energy frontier” and “another important step in making America’s clean energy future a reality.” Chu trumpeted at the time that Solar Trust would prove that “when we rev up the great American innovation machine, we can out-compete any other nation.”

The embarrassment should be bipartisan. “This is a huge milestone for our community,” Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., said when the company received its loan guarantee. “I look forward to continuing my work supporting projects . . . that will harness our local energy resources and help reduce our nation’s dangerous dependence on unstable foreign oil.”

Uwe Schmidt, chairman and CEO of the company, also argued that Solar Trust was good for the nation. He wrote last year that “the DOE loan guarantee is a ‘win-win’ for government and the companies involved and will not only advance the cause of energy independence but will create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country.”

The bankruptcy makes Schmidt’s attempt to rebuke DOE critics in the wake of the Solyndra bankruptcy particuarly ironic.

“Despite the posturing and finger pointing, the American solar energy industry is alive and well,” Schmidt wrote in an op-ed for the Huffington Post, before discussing his company’s business plans. Referring to Solyndra, he lamented that “one company’s bankruptcy has cast doubt on the credibility of a government program that is otherwise being administered with incredible efficiency.”

The list of bankrupt solar companies has grown since Schmidt scolded Solyndra investigators. How many more might go bankrupt? Secretary Chu won’t say.

4. Gerald Seib at WSJ–an Obama mole tries to passs this off as politics

5. Drudge raises the possibility of a leak–and shows a photo of Kegan with Obama

6. Keegan refused to recuse herself from the case despite her prior involvement

7. Keegan exchanged emails with Justice and Larry Tribe after she was nominated to Supreme Court

8. The leftists have identified Roberts as a possible weak link

9. Roberts is concerned about the court’s institutional standing

10 Obama’s arguments are geared directly to that concern

11.I suspect Keegan or her clerks are leaking information about the internal deliberations.

12.I hope I am wrong.

dismisses this as politics and began their internal deliberations. Suddenly, Obama pops up and starts warning the court, while ignoramuses like Gerald Seib at WSJ–a known Obama mole simply dismisses this as politics.

Keegan has never been a judge before–and may not understand that when you become a judge you leave the public life behind and enter into a world where confidentialities must be respected and you must be like Caesar’s wife. I hope I am wrong about her.

Did you watch OTurd’s latest rant and attack on the Supreme Court? I have never seen anything like this.
————————–
If, and I say if, Keegan is leaking information about the court’s internal deliberations, I suspect she has a bit of a problem right about now. It will be for the Chief Justice to determine how targeted Obama’s attacks are on the issues which have surfaced between the various factions. If Breyer sees this, one can only hope that he is enough of a court man to put a clamp on it from the left wing side of the court.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/02/149703488/oil-scare-turns-fedex-onto-energy-efficiency
For delivery vans, says Smith [chairman and founder of Fedex], FedEx is betting on electric or hybrid vehicles.
“An all-electric pickup and delivery van will operate at a 75 percent less per-mile cost than an internal combustion engine variant,” he says. “Now, I didn’t say 7 1/2 percent — [I said] 75 percent. These are big numbers.”
[….]
Smith points out that the vehicles would be charged in off-peak hours, minimizing the need for additional power plants. Battery life and cost remain a challenge, but Smith is optimistic.

“I think in three or four years you will have a battery vehicle with a range that’s probably double what it has today — a couple of hundred miles versus a hundred miles — and it’ll probably be 25 percent to 40 percent cheaper than [it] currently is.”
[….]
For FedEx’s fleet of nearly 700 planes, Smith says biofuel, probably produced with algae, will replace much petroleum-based jet fuel. The technology has already been proven, but breakthroughs are needed to produce the fuel on the scale that’s necessary.

Solyndra 2……………………$2.1 billion loan and it goes bankrupt, its worse than Solyndra.

=================

Lots of numbers here. But how about the most important numbers: what percent of ALL start-up companies go broke, not just in the solar or green fields?

And most US solar panel companies have the same problem: China has developed better panel technology and is under-selling them. Which means that solar technology worldwide is doing BETTER, not that it isn’t working.

Kagan should never have been put on the supreme court.
——————–
I started to say ya think, but I will simply say true.
———————

There should be a rule to say that judicial nominees should not have been working for the current admin. Bush and to Republicans credit in protesting backed off at Harriet Mayer (spelling?) ‘s nomination.

Here Morris makes the argument that if the Supreme Court throws out Obamacare that his goose is cooked. What does he have to show for the last 3 years? A stimulus that did not work and a law which he as a constitutional scholar of the Blackstone persuasion–not some Harvard gadfly, but a man of legal genuius and insight like Politico told us, knew was unconstitutional but figured he could bludgeon the Supreme Court into upholding or suffer the wrath of Zeus.

================

Well, for some flim-flam tinfoil, remember Obama’s pattern of “I tried, but the bad guys wouldn’t let me.” If the SC strikes it down now, he can still claim it WOULD have worked.

From everything I have read about Roberts, he seems pretty secure in himself and his position as the Chief Justice, and he actually rebuked OTurd publically in a speech after the 2010 tongue lashing OTurd gave the court, while they were just sitting there, no chance for them to response. Roberts does not seem to have forgotten that episode.

My sense is other than Obots like Kagan and maybe Gingberg, most will not appreciate being openly intimidated and threatened like this. Sotomeyer was a judge prior to his, so was Breyer, I would like to think they would not be intimidated either.

turndownobama
April 3rd, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Well, for some flim-flam tinfoil, remember Obama’s pattern of “I tried, but the bad guys wouldn’t let me.” If the SC strikes it down now, he can still claim it WOULD have worked.

I agree with you that it may be tried but it is very different this time. One of issues that many Obama-crats are just coming to grips with is “unconstitutional” means ILLEGAL. All kinds of things might work but they are illegal. The mafia is one of the most efficient business models ever crafted but it is illegal. When people are wholly invested in an ideology or certain beliefs it is very difficult for them to finally realize they were wrong. That is what we are seeing and we cannot let up and cut them any slack. He cannot be trusted in anything.

Ever since the primary, Obama and his supporters like Doug Wilder, Clapburn and JJIII, and his big media whores have relied on the threat of violence by blacks if Obama does not get his way. We saw that threat in Denver, we are seeing a version of it directed against the Supreme Court and we will see it again in the election. The black population supports him on virtually everything he does. Would they go that far? I have no doubt that some would–and their mantra will be to blame whitey. Will the others follow? I will be damned if I know the answer to that question. At one time I would have said no. Now I would say it depends on what big media does. Big media loves riots for the same reason that PT Barnum loved a fire. What they have done with Zimmerman is the tell. People like Griffin will stop at nothing until they are at risk. It is all very disconcerting. Especially if you believe as I do that Obama is entering the act out stage.

Well, OTurd did say he wanted to bankcrupt the coal industry, WSJ outlines how in this video. Wonder what PA’s Casey and WV’s Manchin have to say about this? Nothing of course.
——————–
That pair needs to find other jobs. They do not represent their constituents. Casey is just plain sickening.

While Palin has all the time in her hands to choose carefully on which TV show appear , what to wear and how to be all trimmed, Hillary has no time at all to do that; she’s very busy working for her country and paying attention to how to solve the world problems (please don’t take offense in that as this is a Hillary site), yesterday she received and award from VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE; that’s the great difference between the 2 ladies.The palin lovers should try and go to her site and to the Fox news blogs, comment something good about Hillary and you all be treated with hate and be insulted along with Hillary, it’s ok that you love her,but there are a lot of places where you can go and show it; for me this is a place where freely we all can show our love for Hillary without being insulted at all;you’ll see that as soon as she can she’ll atack Hillary or use her at her convenience when needed as she did on her book.She’s working her heart out and finally she’s being recognized:http://www.wtkr.com/news/wdbj7-secretary-of-state-hillary-accepts-honor-at-vmi-tuesday-20120403,0,2134748.story?track=rss
or maybe I’ll just have to ignore those comments

From everything I have read about Roberts, he seems pretty secure in himself and his position as the Chief Justice, and he actually rebuked OTurd publically in a speech after the 2010 tongue lashing OTurd gave the court, while they were just sitting there, no chance for them to response. Roberts does not seem to have forgotten that episode.

My sense is other than Obots like Kagan and maybe Gingberg, most will not appreciate being openly intimidated and threatened like this. Sotomeyer was a judge prior to his, so was Breyer, I would like to think they would not be intimidated either.
———————
Hope you are right Tim.

Thanks for sharing that link, glad to see Hillary get that award, I’m going to see if I can comment over there, and express what you did, that there are many independents who admire both Palin and Hillary, and there is no need to insult Hillary or her supporters, many of them also happen to be Palin supporters, we may not agree with both on everything, but have respect and admiration for both. Why can’t these haters figure this out? Now lets see I can figure out how to comment on that link.

Ginsberg was appointed b Bll Clinton. Some Bots have been wanting her to retire now while Obama can choose her replacement — but she shows no signs of doing that. Which to me indicates she might be planning to hang in till a REAL Democrat gets elected.

tinfoil: Or maybe she’s making some deal that she gets to approve the replacemnet.

While Palin has all the time in her hands to choose carefully on which TV show appear , what to wear and how to be all trimmed, Hillary has no time at all to do that; she’s very busy working for her country and paying attention to how to solve the world problems

=================

Good point, for those who care about appearances. But both Palin and Hillary are great ladies and imho it’s great to see both of them praised and defended here.

I agree with you that it may be tried but it is very different this time. One of issues that many Obama-crats are just coming to grips with is “unconstitutional” means ILLEGAL. All kinds of things might work but they are illegal. The mafia is one of the most efficient business models ever crafted but it is illegal. When people are wholly invested in an ideology or certain beliefs it is very difficult for them to finally realize they were wrong. That is what we are seeing and we cannot let up and cut them any slack. He cannot be trusted in anything.
————————-
If he wants to make that argument, he has a very heavy burden of proof. All the evidence adduced to data–I mean the hard data, points to a costly, draconian, inefficient, corrupt model. I would love to see him dive headfirst into that cesspool.

Big media, especially NYT wants Hillary to rescue Obama. That was what Keller was pushing for and believed would happen. She sent signals that she was considering the vp position, he jumped and wrote the article supporting it and then she pulled back. He is a Hillary hater, so it serves him right.

From everything I have read about Roberts, he seems pretty secure in himself and his position as the Chief Justice, and he actually rebuked OTurd publically in a speech after the 2010 tongue lashing OTurd gave the court, while they were just sitting there, no chance for them to response. Roberts does not seem to have forgotten that episode.

My sense is other than Obots like Kagan and maybe Gingberg, most will not appreciate being openly intimidated and threatened like this. Sotomeyer was a judge prior to his, so was Breyer, I would like to think they would not be intimidated either.
———————
Robers is in a tougher position. The others are responsible for their own opinion only. Roberts is responsible for the entire court as an institution. I still think he will come out the right way. I know Bill Rehnquist would have.

Even If It Survives the Court, the Health Care Law Is Doomed
By Scott Rasmussen

Media coverage now implies that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the fate of President Obama’s health care law. But nothing the court decides will keep the law alive for more than a brief period of time.

There are three ways the health care law could meet its end. The first, obviously, is the Supreme Court could declare some or all of it unconstitutional in June.

If it gets past that hurdle, the law also could be ended by Election 2012. If a Republican president is elected, the GOP will almost certainly also win control of the Senate and retain control of the House. While the details might take time, a Republican sweep in November would ultimately end the Obama experiment.

But even if the law survives the Supreme Court and the next election, the clock will be ticking. Recent estimates suggest that the law would cause 11 million people to lose their employer-provided insurance and be forced onto a government-backed insurance plan. That’s a problem because 77 percent of those who now have insurance rate their current coverage as good or excellent. Only 3 percent rate their coverage as poor. For most of the 11 million forced to change their insurance coverage then, it will be received as bad news and create a pool of vocally unhappy voters.

Additionally, the cost estimates for funding the program are likely to keep going up. Eighty-one percent of voters expect it to cost more than projected, and recent Congressional Budget Office estimates indicate voters are probably right. But it’s not the narrow specifics and cost estimates that guarantee the ultimate demise of the president’s health care plan. It’s the fact that the law runs contrary to basic American values and perceptions.

This, then, is the third hurdle the law faces: Individual Americans recognize that they have more power as consumers than they do as voters. Their choices in a free market give them more control over the economic world than choosing one politician or another.

Seventy-six percent think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles. A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures. All such choices would be banned under the current health care law.

Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers. Eighty-two percent believe that if an employer pays for health insurance, the worker should be able to use that money and select an insurance product that meets his or her individual needs. If the plan they select costs less than the company plan, most believe the worker should get to keep the change.

It’s not just the idea of making the choice that drives these numbers, it’s the belief held by most Americans that competition will do more than government regulation to reduce the cost of health care. For something as fundamental as medical care, government policy must be consistent with deeply held American values. That’s why an approach that increases consumer choice has solid support and a plan that relies on mandates and trusting the government cannot survive.

Raulston asked Darrow, “I hope you do not mean to reflect upon the court?” Darrow’s reply: “Well, your honor has the right to hope. Likewise Obama when he presumes to tell the court what it can and cannot do. He has a right to hope that they will look past separation of powers, federalism, and the right of judicial review and simply uphold this misbegotten law. And hope may move mountains but it does not beat a faster draw.

Hmm. It appears that if the Executive branch wants to pick a fight with the Judiciary, the Judiciary says “bring it on”. Okay, Mr. Executive Branch – quit gassing and tell us where you stand on the court’s power.

YOU ARE ORDERED. Answer, you fucker. Deadline Thursday. Were you just bloviating for the cameras, or are you serious? Put up or shut up.

CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday…

—

The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

Either way they answer this, they are screwed. If they double down, we come close to having a constitutional crisis of sorts. If they back down, then it becomes very public that he was bloviating for the media, and is a wuss.

Good point, for those who care about appearances. But both Palin and Hillary are great ladies and imho it’s great to see both of them praised and defended here.
———————————
Don’t kid yourself turndown–appearance is a big thing. Take a young child who has not even been socialized. Show that child a picture of Brittany Speers and it will elicit a positive reaction. Then show them a picture of Mother Teresa and they will recoil. It aint sexism, ageism or any of that. It is how the brain is wired. And it is something against which it is vain to repine.

At Obama lovin’ Politico the JournoListers are forced to admit that “Obama, the left take on Supreme Court“. Examples abound on what Politico describes, “Obama’s statement echoes an emerging line of attack on the left.”

“Just as the Bush administration insisted that the war on terror was a new and unique kind of war, the Obama administration assures the court that the health-care market is unlike any other.

And now a conservative-led majority on the court may strike down Obama’s individual mandate, just as a liberal-led majority struck down Bush’s military tribunals. If so, law professor Orin Kerr wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, “this will be the second consecutive presidency in which the Supreme Court imposed significant limits on the primary agenda of the sitting President in ways that were unexpected based on precedents at the time the President acted.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was in the majority when the court reined in Bush, and his questions at oral argument last week suggested that he has misgivings about the scope of the health-care-reform law, too.”

George W. Bush was derided a “cowboy” but we don’t recall an attack by Bush (on a national security matter) against the court.

There’s no other to say this, but OTurd is acting like some thug and a dictatorial punk.

Even if the Supreme Ct is that irresponsible to allow the Federal govt complete control with no limits, no bounds, does OTurd really think of that 60-70% of people who completely oppose the indiv mandate, is he going to have Holder arrest all these americans via the IRS?

This initially happened with the advent of the income tax, there were some americans who opposed it and still do and are in jail in protest for it, i.e. Peter Schiff’s father. But most americans were fine with it, at some level. But this is a coersion of the american people, essentially letting them you MUST buy this said product, enter into contract with a private company where you want to or not. How many millions will refuse to be forced to buy something and pay that penalty? I would bet millions would be willing to go to jail over this. There are not enough jailcells to hold all these millions of people.

Merlin’s Beard Harry HillaryForTexas! To quote Justice Kagan “WOW”. That three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit looks like another anti-Obamascam ruling to come. Our favorite part of the article you cited:

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick–both Republican appointees–remained silent, the source said.

Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don’t have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama’s comments yesterday about judges being an “unelected group of people.”

It would be nice if the ruling in the 5th Circuit comes well before June 28 so the Supreme Court can cite the DOJ response in its ruling.

@ Admin, yep. It seems to me that while many in the judiciary are fine if he demagogues as an ideologue all day long on this or that law, they took a big WOW WOW step back once he started challenging the power of the judiciary itself. That’s a horse of a different color, and it looks as if they don’t like it one bit.

Like you, I am hoping that they will rule quickly, and hand that over to the SCOTUS to use. The second case is indeed interesting, as the judge basically told the DOJ attorney, “Oh, reaaaally? That’s not what your boss just said.”

Following President Barack Obama’s oddly veiled and dictatorial threat against the United States Supreme Court, a federal appeals court is demanding the Obama Department of Justice answer a request over whether or not the Obama administration has even the most basic understanding of American government and judiciary review.

SERIOUSLY!

From a just released CBS New report:

…The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary.

…Smith then became “very stern,” the source said, telling the lawyers arguing the case it was not clear to “many of us” whether the president believes such a right exists.

It would appear Barack Obama’s much heralded 2008 description of being a “Constitutional scholar” is facing a rather strong challenge from those who have actually read the Constitution – a reading that it seems Obama never quite made time for before or since becoming President of the United States.

Fascinatingly intense. Obviously, the DOJ will concede the power of judicial review, as historically recognized in Marbury. But the court is asking it to spell out exactly what the Administration thinks the limits are. Obama — like many pundits and politicians — throws around the ideas of judicial “restraint” and “activism,” but the judges themselves tend to speak in terms of “saying what the law is” and putting the law — constitutional and statutory — in the proper hierarchy — with the Constitution on top — with no element of judicial will injected into the process.

It will be interesting to see if the Administration will endorse such a bland — but highly deferential — view of the judicial power or if it will explicate some more nuanced notion of when courts ought to let important/economic legislation prevail.

Do you think Obama administration is up to this task (bolded part)? 5th circuit has thrown the gauntlet back to Obama.

How does anyone know how much time Sarah Palin has “on her hands”? That is being particularly presumptuous, and sounds to me like a comment made by someone who doesn’t like her, and feels that she can comment as she sees fit, but then cautions others that their comments should reflect the fact that “this is a Hillary loving site”. In other words, don’t show any support for Palin because ya’ know, she’s a nobody. Sorry, your comment was taken by me in the way it was given. I like both Sarah and Hillary. Your comment was a put down disguised as concern for Hillary with a little added intimidation meant to silence other’s viewpoints. Phooey on you, Vcal. They are both capable, likeable, intelligent females who seem to give a crap about others, and this country. Two peas in pod in my book. You just might want to take your own advice and skip over comments that support Palin so that you can be firmly entrenched in everything Hillary while you keep your blinders on and try to ignore and diminish those you deem as Hillary’s perceived competitors. As far as I can tell based on Hillary’s own words and actions, I believe Hillary would be very supportive of Sarah Palin. I also believe Sarah has shown respect to Hillary unlike many of the females scowls within the Democratic party hierarchy.

A couple things: Streiff at Red States thinks Kennedy was the leak. He refers to him as the cowardly lion. I am not sure he is right. But somebody on that court is passing the word, and that is why those attacks are taking place. He thinks Kennedy is the weak link based on a case involving Roe vs Wade. Fortunately, that is not the core issue here.
———————————-
explicate some more nuanced notion of when courts ought to let important/economic legislation prevail.
———————–
How about when it does not violate federalism, and separation of powers and/or set the stage for social engineering.

Article 6: the constitution is the supreme law of the land all federal and state laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

(Reuters) – A prominent French academic, Richard Descoings, was found dead naked in a New York hotel room on Tuesday afternoon. New York police have opened an investigation because they believe the circumstances of his death are suspicious.

A law enforcement source said that the body of Descoings, director of the prestigious Institute of Political Studies in Paris and a member of France’s Council of State, a government advisory body, was found on Tuesday afternoon in his room at a hotel in Midtown Manhattan.

This video was up on Obama’s website. He has since scrubbed it from his site. A woman tells us that in Obama’s second term, “It’s on!”, because he won’t have to worry about re-election anymore.

Just what the hell does Obama have planned for a second term, once he’s more “flexible”? I swear, the man wants to destroy this country. He is a duplicitous snake. God only knows what he’ll do with a second term.

Obama tells the press that they aren’t doing it right. How dare they report as if republican ideas are legitimate opposition representing over half the country! He reminds them of what their narrative is supposed to be:

Obama tells the press that they aren’t doing it right. How dare they report as if republican ideas are legitimate opposition representing over half the country! He reminds them of what their narrative is supposed to be…

——–
I know there are a lot of Jewish folks here so I have to be sensitive, but telling the press what to say and threatening the Supreme Court is something Hitler would do.

I am of two minds about the leak too. Check my 10:28 am comment. If there was no leak and even if there was and it didn’t come from Kagan, classic Obama to throw her under the bus and tarnish her reputation. Anyway he is getting slapped right and left for his foolish comments from yesterday.

Shadowfax, I am not a conservative, but I get damn angry at the hubris of the Dems and the media that they behave as if half the country are EXTREME WILD-EYED EXTREMISTS!!!! They push that meme til I’m sick of it.

Opinions that half the country hold are, by definition, mainstream, not fringe. I have plenty of Republican family and neighbors, and no, they are not lunatics – we jsut disagree. To insist and pressure that the press must treat them as fringe and demonize them as “other” is fascist as hell. One need not agree with conservative positions to see what this asshat is doing.

Not sure if Kennedy is the leak, I listened to all 3 days, the man sounded very forceful in his critic of the indiv mandate, even the 3rd day he was very forceful about seperation of state and federal issues.

If I had to guess the leak, and there seems to be one, it would be Kagan, she after was the last solicitor general, no doubt she brought some of her staff over from the WH itself, and never being a practicing lawyer or a judge herself, she would has no idea or sense of keeping mouths shut until June.

Why does creepy old Bill O’Reilly have on Monica Crowley and ALan Combs and the segment includes he and Monica attacking…BO…Obamacare…the DOJ…NOPE. They are attacking Hillary Clinton about an interview she was with Andrea Mitchell?? Bill O said it was payback by Hillary to Rush Limbaugh for previously attacking Chelsea.